If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

I think thats definitely right.
And we fans aren't much different. We've had all kinds of calls for "cutting DD, cutting Webby!" Our loyalty is to the Giants and not necessarily our players.

So as I said, everyone acts in self interest.

1. The player wants the best deal and best work conditions.
2. The club wants to field a winning team and be profitable.
3. The fans want a winner. (and if that means cutting a long time beloved player and bringing in someone else?..So be it)

That's part of why even though I've bought lots of Giants apparel over the years, I have NEVER bought a jersey. My loyalty is to the team more than the players. I wish former Giants players well on their future endeavors and generally thank them for their service, unless they start openly dissing the organization...

That's part of why even though I've bought lots of Giants apparel over the years, I have NEVER bought a jersey. My loyalty is to the team more than the players. I wish former Giants players well on their future endeavors and generally thank them for their service, unless they start openly dissing the organization...

I suppose everyone is different. There are always players that will be among my favorite. I have a Tuck and a Nicks jersey. And I LOVED Brandon Jacobs and I admit I loved Jeremy Shockey before that.

And of course there is that QB who wore # 11. I kind of liked him as well.

We get all these hyperinflated salaries from the fact that players are unionized and have agents. But those two things are necessary because in the days before players unions, free agency, and the like, teams would force players into long (i.e. their entire career) contracts for a pittance with no way out unless they were traded...

First the owners had all the power, then the players had all the power, and now the power struggle continues to this day. I doubt perfect balance is something that can be achieved...

I disagree that the players union and agents are the reason we have these inflated salaries. Don't the owners set the salary cap? And the owners decide what each player is worth to them. If an owner decides he is willing to pay some rediculous salary to a player, well now he has just set a market that other players of comparable ability are going to go after.

If no owners were willing to pay a salary that a free agent was looking for, would the player quit football? No. He would sign for the best salary that he was being offered, whatever that would be. It is competition and desire to win that makes the owners spend what they spend to get "their" guy.

If the owners wanted to reduce salaries bad enough they could all agree to a pact saying that they are not going to pay more than a certain amount for a certain player, They could even set the prices up by position. But, that will never happen because the owners are almost as competitive as the players and all want to put the best team on the field.

I disagree that the players union and agents are the reason we have these inflated salaries. Don't the owners set the salary cap? And the owners decide what each player is worth to them. If an owner decides he is willing to pay some rediculous salary to a player, well now he has just set a market that other players of comparable ability are going to go after.

If no owners were willing to pay a salary that a free agent was looking for, would the player quit football? No. He would sign for the best salary that he was being offered, whatever that would be. It is competition and desire to win that makes the owners spend what they spend to get "their" guy.

If the owners wanted to reduce salaries bad enough they could all agree to a pact saying that they are not going to pay more than a certain amount for a certain player, They could even set the prices up by position. But, that will never happen because the owners are almost as competitive as the players and all want to put the best team on the field.

Actually...what you are suggesting is illegal. Its called collusion. The MLB owners were harshly punished for that in the courts years ago.
The players get their % of the total revenues. That's the negotiated deal. That's the CBA.
The owners don't set the cap number. The cap number is dictated by total NFL revenues.

Just read for the umpteenth time the "let's face it, it's a business" mantra.

When a player gets cut, you sometimes get: "It's a business. They really don't care about me."

When the player plays on a Superbowl winner and has the opportunity to play elsewhere for more money, they're often bolting:, "Hey, it's a business. I have to make a decision for my family while I'm in the prime of my career" they might be heard to say.

When management (a G.M.) decides to let a player who has been a great player for the franchise, particularly in New York, where revenues are large, it's due to a lot of players on the team already being paid a lot of money for what they do. There being a finite limit on dollars to pay everyone, as agreed to by everyone, management and players alike.

No one is being "cheap" here, at least in the case of when a team is spending up to the salary cap.

The tag line that often goes with the it's a business line is: "Where's the loyalty?"

How many players are loyal to their teammates enough to give up some of the limited pie to satisfy their teammates desire to "feed their family"?

How many players are loyal enough to those who made the game a success before them and are suffering greatly today to give up part of that pie to help them?

If Victor Cruz were to actually get paid $10 million next year, you can guarantee that pie will be short around the table for a number of teammates, and more of them will actually have to be let go.

Players' agents are the ones, along with the players themselves, that you'll sometimes hear publicly pleading their cause. Rarely, it ever, does management have the same opportunity to pull on emotions (a.k.a. attempted manipulation to gain bargaining leverage for the agent and/or the player's own increase in sheckels.

This is a business that wouldn't exist were it not for the owners who built it. And the pie is rather large for everyone to share. Players agree to the system, and the only ones being "cheated" in any negotiation is the fellow athletes whose pie are collectively being slivered away from them.

Few ever speak on behalf of the owner or what they've created for all of us to enjoy and the athlete to potentially prosper.

So, yes, that's the business. For the NFL player, it's gaining money in a competitive scenario in an effort to squeeze it away from other fellow players, and doing so without really thinking in those terms.

If you'd turn down an extra $4m a year or a significant chunk of guaranteed money out of "loyalty," I'd have another adjective to describe that decision.

Just because there's a limited pool of money from which to pay players doesn't mean that if Player A gets x dollars, Player B can only get y. Here's my response to that... If you want to make more money, be a better player.

Actually...what you are suggesting is illegal. Its called collusion. The MLB owners were harshly punished for that in the courts years ago.
The players get their % of the total revenues. That's the negotiated deal. That's the CBA.
The owners don't set the cap number. The cap number is dictated by total NFL revenues.

I think the other term that bothers me more than this phrase is the "I'm just trying to feed my family" phrase. What the hell is your family eating...lobster, steak and $900 bottles of wine every day?

I make a very small percent of what a minimum pay NFLer makes and I feed my family just fine.
.

The reality of your life and that of an athlete are very different. Do you have hangers-on asking you for money all the time, including family like parents or siblings? Do you only get paid 17 weeks a year? Is the maximum earning potential of your career just a scant 4 or 5 years? Does the culture of your profession encourage frivolous spending?

The reality of your life and that of an athlete are very different. Do you have hangers-on asking you for money all the time, including family like parents or siblings? Do you only get paid 17 weeks a year? Is the maximum earning potential of your career just a scant 4 or 5 years? Does the culture of your profession encourage frivolous spending?

The other factor is that in the NFL, they can end a contract at any time and all you get is the guaranteed money.
If you get hurt it doesn't matter how many years are left on your deal. Your toast.

Just read for the umpteenth time the "let's face it, it's a business" mantra.

When a player gets cut, you sometimes get: "It's a business. They really don't care about me."

When the player plays on a Superbowl winner and has the opportunity to play elsewhere for more money, they're often bolting:, "Hey, it's a business. I have to make a decision for my family while I'm in the prime of my career" they might be heard to say.

When management (a G.M.) decides to let a player who has been a great player for the franchise, particularly in New York, where revenues are large, it's due to a lot of players on the team already being paid a lot of money for what they do. There being a finite limit on dollars to pay everyone, as agreed to by everyone, management and players alike.

No one is being "cheap" here, at least in the case of when a team is spending up to the salary cap.

The tag line that often goes with the it's a business line is: "Where's the loyalty?"

How many players are loyal to their teammates enough to give up some of the limited pie to satisfy their teammates desire to "feed their family"?

How many players are loyal enough to those who made the game a success before them and are suffering greatly today to give up part of that pie to help them?

If Victor Cruz were to actually get paid $10 million next year, you can guarantee that pie will be short around the table for a number of teammates, and more of them will actually have to be let go.

Players' agents are the ones, along with the players themselves, that you'll sometimes hear publicly pleading their cause. Rarely, it ever, does management have the same opportunity to pull on emotions (a.k.a. attempted manipulation to gain bargaining leverage for the agent and/or the player's own increase in sheckels.

This is a business that wouldn't exist were it not for the owners who built it. And the pie is rather large for everyone to share. Players agree to the system, and the only ones being "cheated" in any negotiation is the fellow athletes whose pie are collectively being slivered away from them.

Few ever speak on behalf of the owner or what they've created for all of us to enjoy and the athlete to potentially prosper.

So, yes, that's the business. For the NFL player, it's gaining money in a competitive scenario in an effort to squeeze it away from other fellow players, and doing so without really thinking in those terms.

Do you take the same approach with your own personal employment? Do you make sure that you are not taking too much of your company's "pie" so that your fellow employees can get their share too?

Just read for the umpteenth time the "let's face it, it's a business" mantra.

When a player gets cut, you sometimes get: "It's a business. They really don't care about me."

When the player plays on a Superbowl winner and has the opportunity to play elsewhere for more money, they're often bolting:, "Hey, it's a business. I have to make a decision for my family while I'm in the prime of my career" they might be heard to say.

When management (a G.M.) decides to let a player who has been a great player for the franchise, particularly in New York, where revenues are large, it's due to a lot of players on the team already being paid a lot of money for what they do. There being a finite limit on dollars to pay everyone, as agreed to by everyone, management and players alike.

No one is being "cheap" here, at least in the case of when a team is spending up to the salary cap.

The tag line that often goes with the it's a business line is: "Where's the loyalty?"

How many players are loyal to their teammates enough to give up some of the limited pie to satisfy their teammates desire to "feed their family"?

How many players are loyal enough to those who made the game a success before them and are suffering greatly today to give up part of that pie to help them?

If Victor Cruz were to actually get paid $10 million next year, you can guarantee that pie will be short around the table for a number of teammates, and more of them will actually have to be let go.

Players' agents are the ones, along with the players themselves, that you'll sometimes hear publicly pleading their cause. Rarely, it ever, does management have the same opportunity to pull on emotions (a.k.a. attempted manipulation to gain bargaining leverage for the agent and/or the player's own increase in sheckels.
This is a business that wouldn't exist were it not for the owners who built it. And the pie is rather large for everyone to share. Players agree to the system, and the only ones being "cheated" in any negotiation is the fellow athletes whose pie are collectively being slivered away from them.

Few ever speak on behalf of the owner or what they've created for all of us to enjoy and the athlete to potentially prosper.

So, yes, that's the business. For the NFL player, it's gaining money in a competitive scenario in an effort to squeeze it away from other fellow players, and doing so without really thinking in those terms.

I would argue that the NFL wouldn't exist without the support of the fans.....and seems that they ultimately are the ones who pay.... ticket prices, PSLs, parking fees, concession prices, NFL Sunday ticket, endless commercials, etc.

"They come to the line of scrimmage and the first thing they do is start looking for me....I know, and they know. When they’d find me they’d start screaming: 56 left ! 56 left!....So there’s this thing I did. After the play was over I’d come up behind them and whisper: don’t worry where I am. I’ll tell you when I get there."
- Lawrence Taylor